DaveG38

I like Farage. He certainly tells it like it is. Pity other politicians don't do the same.

Boris Johnson isn't the government of the UK, nor is he in it, so at this moment anything he says is just his opinion.

Not entirely true. Firstly, the value of the pound now makes exports cheaper and more competitive, and that might play well for the UK at the expense of EU member state suppliers of goods. Secondly, although Sterling has weakened, the Euro is unlikely to fare well the longer we wait to trigger A50 - Italy has already had to sort one financial crisis out. It won't be long before Greece needs another bailout, let alone what then awaits the parlous state of the German banks and the Med states when things get worse. Then there are other states whose citizens might like a vote as well. With a number of European elections coming along the EU politicians want to get on with this, but that's basically because they want stability and to avoid contagion, not because they want to genuinely sort things out. They also, of course, need to sort out where they will get our contribution from in future. Put all this together and while the UK position is weaker than it was last week before we voted, its still got quite a bit of leverage there. It's key leverage is over triggering A50. The UK needs time to get its team together, get a new PM in place and to decide what its stance will be, what its red lines are and whatw e might be prepared to give in return. So, no matter how much Juncker stamps his feet, its up to us to decide and we should do so when the time is right for us. .

If you had worked for BT and lived in Portslade, you'd have needed a hell of a storage space for the business cards. About 25 years ago, when I last visited the exchange, there was one entire huge wall completely covered in cards retrieved from coin boxes - back then BT was actively going round removing these on a regular and sustained basis, basically because BT was concerned about its image and the message failure to remove the cards might send.

On the face of it, if you believe him, the seller has sold 12 of these sets at C$34.95, so I'd guess that's about the going rate.

With you there all the way on 'democracy'. As you say it trumps all else.

Megan did indeed have a shop trading as World Coins in Broad Street. The dealer was David Mason and as you say he emigrated (to Spain). I may be wrong, but I believe he may be back in the UK now. He did post on introductory basis on this site somewhere about a year or two ago - maybe with a list of coins for sale, in which case it may have been in the For Sale thread.

Simplest way, if you have all three types is from the thickness of the rims and the size of the teeth on the reverse. Put simply, Rev E has a thick rim, Rev F a thin rim and Rev G one in between. As far as teeth go, Rev E has short teeth, Rev F has long teeth and Rev G has teeth sized in between.

No, but when grants are applied for and given, the UK government doesn't just take the cash and do what it wants with it. It has to be spent for the purposes for which it was given. That's not unreasonable, but the fact is that the UK government does not control this money, the EU does. The EU also decides who it goes to, the UK government doesn't. Thus for example, the EU financed much of the investment needed to provide Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly with superfast broadband. Welcome I'm sure it was, but it wasn't the government that decided to do this, using our money, it was the EU. My argument about the EU is always about control and democracy. We should have it and not unelected people elsewhere over whom we have absolutely no say. We can't stop them doing whatever they wish, we can't sack them, we can't hold them to account. We are powerless and for that reason alone, I'm for out.

Sorry, but which part isn't true? My understanding is that the rebate isn't set in stone and can be withdrawn. Equally, the grants are directed. And the figure before all this is £350 million as far as I know, so which part isn't true?

The 'lie' about the £350 million is more a case of not properly explaining how that figure is arrived at and what mitigates it. Strictly speaking the figure is correct, but leave don't say that a good proportion of that comes back. Fair enough, but it is equally true that the rebate isn't sacrosanct and the grants given to the UK are also not written into law and are directed i.e. we don't get to say where that money is spent. So, from my perspective, I'd rather the government of the UK decides where to spend the money, not an unelected bunch in Brussels who don't give a flying fig for the member states. On the issue of the laws of the UK, the 10% figure is correct if you take it as strictly 'laws'. However, when you factor in that the decisions of the Commission have to be worked up into legislation and directives etc, then the 60% figues is much closer to the truth. It is this figure which is the issue since our government has no say over having to enact whatever rules and directives come out of the Commission. As for real plans in place, well none of the 'leave' team are likely to be leading a government, so to expect them to have detailed plans in place and agreed is totally unrealistic. That doesn't mean however, that their general approach could not be implemented. If you expect detailed plans you will be diappointed, in the same way as there are no detailed plans for if we stay. Is this necessary? Yes, because the EU is about to change dramatically and those changes will impact us significantly. Remain don't like to talk about this because they know it doesn't look good for us. However, whichever way you look at it, the remain side is almost wholly based on fear, threats and an unenthusiastic grudging defence of the EU. It's hardly a ringing endorsement. I listened to the labour party talking about it at their conference earlier today, and they were almost wholly negative about the EU, and spent most of their time trying to attack the leave campaign. Where's the passion for staying? There wasn't any. The only argument remain have is 'don't take a chance.' Not a convincing case for why the EU is such a wonderful institution is it? We Brits are better than that, so I'm with Boris - I'd love to see tomorrow as our independence day.

To my mind its simply a matter of deciding who runs the country, the government or the EU. With an elected government we can kick out who we don't like. With the EU we can't. For me it all boils down to this simple question. Add in to this mix some of the outright lies being told, especially by remain and I too am for out. For instance Cameron keeps telling us that Turkey won't be joining any time soon, but that isn't never. He claims to have a veto, but won't say he will use it. He claims that Turkey isn't on course to join, but they applied to join last century and we are now giving them £1 billion to help them make their case. And finally, as soon as the referendum is over, the EU is re-starting talks on Turkey's accession. So all this crap about they won't join until the distant future is all so much horse manure, designed to make us think that the government is acting responsibly and in our interest. It isn't and it doesn't. And if anybody thinks its just the tories, well Jeremy Corbyn's labour party would act no differently. It's little wonder we all have no regard for politicians.

Got a five pence the other day.

Don't know exactly, but there is a 1934 specimen that's in fine condition at best, so it must have gone on well after WW2 I would have thought. Many of the other wreath crowns were also spent at sometime in their lives, and saw some limited circulation. However, I entirely accept that they were not really intended for circulation. The real challenge is to find a churchill crown in fine - I'm told they are then quite attractive, if you can believe that!!

A kind of loss leader then!

Just to add to the fun, the beads appear different, but this might be the photograph and the rims seem to be different thicknesses.

Good luck to the Westminster Collection who are apparently the new owners. I can't see them making much of a profit out of this one, not after having paid £1,350 for it.

I wasn't particularly raising the issue of including this coin in the Spink Catalogue. I just thought that the lack of any response to a reasonable suggestion was something that helped define my view of Spink and the people who work there. I'm not really bothered whether anybody raises it with them again or whether the DEI GRATIA halfpenny ends up in their catalogue or not. For the record, I think I made the suggestion well ahead of the deadline for the printers of the 2016 edition, but I may be wrong as I can't find the email now. Having said this, I do find the reply from Spink to be very odd. Even in poor condition, the legend of this type leaps out as something different from the run of the mill William III halfpenny, so why they couldn't work out 'what on earth was being suggested' is very strange. Add to that that it was from their own circular that two others were described/sold in the past and it seems even more odd that this coin hasn't made it to their catalogue. However, I entirely accept the point about inclusion of coins in the catalogue. Of course that's for Spink to decide, and I understand why they wouldn't want to include every minor variety (although I do think their variety inclusion policy is somewhat inconsistent). However, this is scarcely a 'minor' variety, since it repesents the first, short lived copper coinage of William III, rather than a minor design change. They have included the 1689 halfcrown first reverse type and the 1823 first obverse type, rare though it is, so it does seem odd not to want to include the DEI GRATIA halfpenny. If they don't want these types, then why include the 1687 first bust tin farthing? Consistency seems to me to be the issue.

Based on my experience of him over the 1882 no H penny, he's one to avoid like the plague.

Not connected with buying through them, I approached them by email some 9 months or so ago about including the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny in the next edition of their Coins Of England book. Didn't get the courtesy of a reply, so I don't think I would have any interest in anything they might be selling, certainly not if this is their attitude. I don't deal with people like this, regardless of their 'name.'

They are under Edward VIII and were issued posthumously.

I presume that plate is put on electrically whilst wash is literally dipping in molten silver. However, I may be wrong!

If 2691 isn't an option (it's certainly the best) then 2694 would be next, followed by 2692, then 2693.

There is/was a guy on ebay who has made a business out of trashing sets and selling individual coins. Can't remember his moniker, but from memory he was selling quite well, and was certainly up on the deal compared to the price of indiviudal sets.

Don't consider the investment angle. Back in the 1960s coin dealers were pushing Churchill Crowns as investments, and today you still can't give them away. Indeed, when you consider that I used to earn £1-10/- for working 8 hours at J Lyons, washing up on a Saturday, five shillings was a fair sum to pay at face value for a coin. Given that you might be able to sell one now for 25p, i.e. today's equivalent face value, if you are lucky, the erosion of value has been huge. It will be no different for this coin. Keep one if you like it, or collect them, but forget investment.